Editors took to the ombudsmen columns Sunday to explain their decisions about the Fallujah photos. I've included links to images of the pages I have.

The Washington Post [page]

The picture chosen for Page One, (Assistant Managing Editor Bill) Hamilton explains, "seemed to capture the motivation and mood of what happened in Fallujah better than anything we saw. We were of course concerned that it also showed human remains. We decided to crop out a limb that clearly indicated the blackened mass was a body. It was possible to look at that picture and not immediately know what you were looking at." The bridge picture was initially rejected for the front page as too graphic. "You knew exactly what you were looking at," he says. Then, it was reconsidered, in part because of Executive Editor Len Downie's concern that, like the incident in Somalia, "this day could become a hugely symbolic one in the course of the Iraq war." After more discussion, the consensus was that the other picture conveyed what had happened and that the picture of the bridge would have been "overkill" on the front page.

The Toronto Star [page]

In her corner office yesterday, managing editor Mary Deanne Shears comfortably answered the question with three of her own:

"Are we hiding the story? No. Are we telling the story? Yes. Are we telling the story with 100 per cent intensity (by not running the bridge picture)? No."

The Salt Lake Tribune [page]

According to Editor Nancy Conway, the decision to run a small photo of a burning Humvee on the front page and run the photo of the bodies hanging from the bridge inside, with a warning of graphic content on A1, was based on the philosophy of "not censoring or sanitizing the news." Also a part of the Tribune discussion was the "realization that some people don't want their children to see it. This allowed parents to make those decisions and warn children if parents did want them to see the image."

Palm Beach Post [page]

What dozens of readers considered "poor judgment," however, the paper's editors considered good news judgment. "We selected that photograph, after a lot of thought and discussion, because it's a powerful news image of a dramatic, horrific and brutal day in Iraq," Post Managing Editor John Bartosek said. "I think it best showed the barbarism of the ambush and its aftermath, and the jubilation of the Iraqis who participated or watched it.

"The violence in Iraq directed at American troops and civilians has been a continuing story for months." Mr. Bartosek said. "But this was not a normal day in Iraq, not just another typical day of violence. We picked a photo that shows the bodies in the background but still captures the news. Similar photos have often been available from that war zone, as well as from Afghanistan, the Middle East and Indonesia. We don't normally publish them, nor do we publish dead bodies in Interstate 95 accidents. This was the biggest story of the day, so we played it at the top of the page."

The Oregonian [page]

Other editors sought a middle ground. Tom Maurer argued the news value of the photographs required the newspaper to publish one for readers. Maurer recommended offering readers some control: Warn them on the front page that a grisly photograph appears inside.

Editor Sandy Rowe agreed with his reasoning. She put a story and a photo that did not show bodies on Page One, along with a note warning readers that a picture showing two bodies was inside.

Hartford Courant [page]

Managing Editor Cliff Teutsch explained that it was a collective decision among news editors, photo editors and graphic design editors to publish the pictures that sickened so many of you Thursday.

"The reason we put that picture on the front page so prominently was because it was an important part of the story about Iraq, where the United States has been engaged in war and is trying to bring democracy," Teutsch said. "The picture showed the emotion of the people demonstrating. It gave a much more complete understanding of what's going on over there."

"It's our job to not only tell the things that are going on but to show what's going on. Throughout our paper - in the Sports section, in the Life section, in Town News - we tell stories by using words and photos. ... I think most readers would say we weren't doing our job if we didn't show that picture."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram [page]

The small picture, played as secondary art in a two-photo package, showed the charred remains of one civilian hanging from a bridge over the Euphrates River while a crowd of Iraqi men and boys celebrated.

Editors decided that the gravity of the horrific development called for extraordinary candor and illustrated the story accordingly. Many photographs that were far more chilling were available, but editors opted for restraint out of concern for the public's sensibilities.

Editors also anticipated reader reaction to the image and offered an explanation in a note to readers saying that "the editors felt it was necessary to publish at least a small image to accurately convey the horror of the incident." And they invited readers to share their opinions about publishing the photograph.

Florida Times-Union

There were many decisions to be made. Which photos were most newsworthy? Which were unsuitable for publication? Some showed close-ups of the bodies.

The result was that the Times-Union used a photo of burning vehicles on the front page. Next to that photo was an editor's note informing readers of a disturbing photo inside the section. The photo showed American bodies hanging from a bridge. The photo was run in black and white, which meant it was not so graphic.

Charleston Post and Courier [page]:

Executive Editor John Huff met with key staff members over the course of several hours Wednesday afternoon and night to consider the newspaper's obligation to provide readers with information they need to know, although it might conflict with reader sensibilities.

He made the decision to use the photo on 1A because he believed that "without it, the full scope of the incident in which U.S. citizens were killed would not have been conveyed."